Online dating is so depressing

[NJ123]

Well I guess I have no reason to complain. I'm chatting with a cute girl on Bumble right now that I matched with that's an attorney. If I screw it up it's all on me. She doesn't know my situation yet though about living at home & other things though. I'll see what happens.

 

Seems I need to rely on Tinder/Bumble instead of places like OKCupid/POF to stand a chance with OLD.

Edited September 20, 2016 by NJ123

[normal person]

Messaging a woman first first is a bad idea? Where do you come up with this crap?

 

My success with OLD despite never sending messages first.

 

Kind of odd how I'm amongst the only people here who's successful with OLD and you scoff at my replies like I'm the one who doesn't what he's doing.

 

"Empowering them over you?" You read too much Pick-Up artist manuals dude.

 

Never read one, but thanks for the baseless assumption. There are shades of grey but the principle holds up. Think about this: when you ask for someone's time and attention, you're essentially saying that you want something they have; that you're not comfortable with whatever you're lacking. It's like going to your friend and asking them for money. You're bowing your head and acknowledging the disparity of leverage and power between you. They have something you want and you're not resourceful or secure enough to have it yourself or be content without it. You've empowered them. You're showing concern and worry, which is unattractive. Not having something you need is not really a good look.

 

Why do you dress up nicely when you go to the bank to ask for a loan? Because you want to look nice to appease them because when you ask for their money, they have power of over you. You're at their mercy. Being at someone's mercy is not appealing. It's the same principal when you ask for someone's time and affection, be it in a message or otherwise. However you slice it, it's better to be asked than to have to ask. Whoever is being asked wears the pants. And it's more attractive to wear the pants.

 

Consider this:

 

Scenario 1: A man sees a woman he finds attractive. He feels he has to ask her out, perhaps maybe he has no other options, so he does. He's essentially saying "I'm not comfortable or secure without your time and attention, and I'm not sure I can get anyone else, so I have to ask you for yours because you're not giving it to me yet." Doesn't sound so appealing when the subtext is spelled out like that, does it?

 

This is why people get uncomfortable or nervous asking people out -- because they concede agency of the situation and willfully put their fate at someone else's discretion to reject or accept. They're making themselves vulnerable. They're lying down and submitting; deferring the decision making process to someone else. Submission is less attractive than being submitted to. Having to do it is less attractive than not having to do it. Continuing off of that...

 

Scenario 2: A man sees a woman, but doesn't really care because he has other options and he knows he can do just fine without this one girl's time and attention, because other women will give it to him. The woman finds him appealing, but he doesn't say anything to her. She wonders why, maybe he's got a ton more options and doesn't need her. She realizes if she wants to talk to this guy, she's going to have to do something about it and basically put herself out there and give the subconscious admission that she's insecure and uncomfortable enough without his attention. So she has to submit to him and put her fate in his hands; she's insecure or uncomfortable without it.

 

That's the concept. People who message other people, or approach other people are often admitting that they have to, that the other person has power over them. People who don't have to maintain the cachet of not having to because they're fine without it and not worried, and therefore not insecure.

 

And if someone has the impression of you that you're confident and secure without them, that makes you all the more appealing.

 

It's funny, I talk about this concept a lot with a lot of women and they all understand it instantaneously and can talk about it with ease, and offer their own insights -- that a guy who they feel has to message them often isn't one they'd be attracted to -- and here you're deriding it like hogwash as if it's something I just made up for fun.

 

 

I've gotten dates by approaching without any indication, so I have no idea what youre' talking about. I just have it happen less often than you.

 

That's great. If I didn't get the indication I'd try a few subtle things until I did. But do you really think it happening a handful of times makes it the rule rather than the exception? If it is, why don't you just go and do that all the time?

[LookAtThisPOst]

My success with OLD despite never sending messages first.

 

Kind of odd how I'm amongst the only people here who's successful with OLD and you scoff at my replies like I'm the one who doesn't what he's doing.

 

 

 

Never read one, but thanks for the baseless assumption. There are shades of grey but the principle holds up. Think about this: when you ask for someone's time and attention, you're essentially saying that you want something they have; that you're not comfortable with whatever you're lacking. It's like going to your friend and asking them for money. You're bowing your head and acknowledging the disparity of leverage and power between you. They have something you want and you're not resourceful or secure enough to have it yourself or be content without it. You've empowered them. You're showing concern and worry, which is unattractive. Not having something you need is not really a good look.

 

Why do you dress up nicely when you go to the bank to ask for a loan? Because you want to look nice to appease them because when you ask for their money, they have power of over you. You're at their mercy. Being at someone's mercy is not appealing. It's the same principal when you ask for someone's time and affection, be it in a message or otherwise. However you slice it, it's better to be asked than to have to ask. Whoever is being asked wears the pants. And it's more attractive to wear the pants.

 

Consider this:

 

Scenario 1: A man sees a woman he finds attractive. He feels he has to ask her out, perhaps maybe he has no other options, so he does. He's essentially saying "I'm not comfortable or secure without your time and attention, and I'm not sure I can get anyone else, so I have to ask you for yours because you're not giving it to me yet." Doesn't sound so appealing when the subtext is spelled out like that, does it?

 

This is why people get uncomfortable or nervous asking people out -- because they concede agency of the situation and willfully put their fate at someone else's discretion to reject or accept. They're making themselves vulnerable. They're lying down and submitting; deferring the decision making process to someone else. Submission is less attractive than being submitted to. Having to do it is less attractive than not having to do it. Continuing off of that...

 

Scenario 2: A man sees a woman, but doesn't really care because he has other options and he knows he can do just fine without this one girl's time and attention, because other women will give it to him. The woman finds him appealing, but he doesn't say anything to her. She wonders why, maybe he's got a ton more options and doesn't need her. She realizes if she wants to talk to this guy, she's going to have to do something about it and basically put herself out there and give the subconscious admission that she's insecure and uncomfortable enough without his attention. So she has to submit to him and put her fate in his hands; she's insecure or uncomfortable without it.

 

That's the concept. People who message other people, or approach other people are often admitting that they have to, that the other person has power over them. People who don't have to maintain the cachet of not having to because they're fine without it and not worried, and therefore not insecure.

 

And if someone has the impression of you that you're confident and secure without them, that makes you all the more appealing.

 

It's funny, I talk about this concept a lot with a lot of women and they all understand it instantaneously and can talk about it with ease, and offer their own insights -- that a guy who they feel has to message them often isn't one they'd be attracted to -- and here you're deriding it like hogwash as if it's something I just made up for fun.

 

 

There was no need to get into a long winded analytical explanation of how it puts the person being asked is "being given the power." You having to explain this makes it more complicated than what it actually is.

 

I approach, talk, get to know them, ask them out. If online, I don't need someone to contact me...in fact, if I did...I'd never get an email.

 

Quite frankly, I don't believe that you get women bombarding your inbox as you so claim due some technique that you use by NOT emailing them.

 

That's great. If I didn't get the indication I'd try a few subtle things until I did. But do you really think it happening a handful of times makes it the rule rather than the exception? If it is, why don't you just go and do that all the time?

 

I said I DO do it all the time.

 

Let's just end this, we're talking in circles here and not getting anywhere. It's all conjecture and speculative. In fact, I've seen women say IN their profiles, "I'm not going to email the guys here, so if you're interested contact me."

 

It's common sense that the man does the contacting. You're using some kind off unorthodox logic for the sake of arguing when there's no argument to be had.

Edited September 21, 2016 by LookAtThisPOst

[Aniela]

 

Quite frankly, I don't believe that you get women bombarding your inbox as you so claim due some technique that you use by NOT emailing them.

 

 

 

I don't agree with everything he listed earlier, as his method, but I do believe that it's working for him. I don't think I've ever seen him complaining here. He usually gives good advice, as well.

[NJ123]

So that woman just out of nowhere stopped replying. Even when the conversation goes really well it still happens. I guess onto the next one whenever that is.

[Aniela]

So that woman just out of nowhere stopped replying. Even when the conversation goes really well it still happens. I guess onto the next one whenever that is.

 

I'm sorry to hear that, but at least she responded. Better luck next time.

[NJ123]

I'm sorry to hear that, but at least she responded. Better luck next time.

 

It just felt like she was taking longer & longer to respond with each following message. Started out replying fairly quick, than she did the slow fade it seems like. The conversation was fun & I was making her laugh or at least she was implying she was but it still wasn't enough.

[Aniela]

It just felt like she was taking longer & longer to respond with each following message. Started out replying fairly quick, than she did the slow fade it seems like. The conversation was fun & I was making her laugh or at least she was implying she was but it still wasn't enough.

 

It wasn't enough for her. She could also have been afraid of rejection. I've been there.

[NJ123]

It wasn't enough for her. She could also have been afraid of rejection. I've been there.

 

Yeah, I guess it is what it is. It just sucks for a conversation to be going really well but there's still no interest. It's just odd.

[normal person]

It just felt like she was taking longer & longer to respond with each following message. Started out replying fairly quick, than she did the slow fade it seems like. The conversation was fun & I was making her laugh or at least she was implying she was but it still wasn't enough.

 

How long did you drag it on? Did you make an emotional connection or did you talk about trivial stuff that'd likely bore her? When did you ask for her number?

 

There was no need to get into a long winded analytical explanation of how it puts the person being asked is "being given the power." You having to explain this makes it more complicated than what it actually is.

 

Well you initially called it "crap," so I did my best to dispel that for anyone reading who might want to apply it.

 

I approach, talk, get to know them, ask them out. If online, I don't need someone to contact me...in fact, if I did...I'd never get an email.

 

If it works for you, great. I don't "need" anyone to contact me either. But nor do I feel the "need" to contact other people out of the blue; avoiding the implications of it is kind of the crux of this.

 

Quite frankly, I don't believe that you get women bombarding your inbox as you so claim due some technique that you use by NOT emailing them.

 

Take a look: https://postimg.org/image/jcir4mri9/

 

Still don't believe me? Now if I had sent those 160 messages to strangers rather than to whoever I sent them to, to them I'd be lowering myself to the level of "guy who has to message me." Granted, you're right to assume there's probably not much crossover between the ones who messaged me and the fictional ones I messaged in that scenario, but the principal still applies: It's infinitely easier to work from a position where someone else needs your attention than vice versa.

 

I said I DO do it all the time.

 

My mistake. What I should've communicated is that if it works for you all the time, then you've got something special there. I don't see why you'd have any other problems.

 

It's common sense that the man does the contacting. You're using some kind off unorthodox logic for the sake of arguing when there's no argument to be had.

 

No, common sense suggests the person that cares or desires the other person more does the contacting or asking. The bank doesn't call you up randomly to ask you if you want to borrow their money. When women contact men, it's not "just because," it's because they feel the things described in my last post. Granted there are a lot of nuances and variations to it, but the point remains, having to ask is akin to a submission.

 

Unorthodox and uncommon doesn't mean "ineffective." Maybe it's not just coincidence that I'm the "uncommon" OLD success in this thread of people frustrated with it. And it's not for the sake of arguing, the appearance of power and leverage is an important element of romantic interaction that you just wanted to jeer at like it was some magic trick for kids. Everyone uses it and has it applied to them whether they realize it or not. If more guys understood the concept as a whole they probably wouldn't struggle as much. Hopefully someone reading this gains some insight from it, at least.

Edited September 21, 2016 by normal person

[NJ123]

How long did you drag it on? Did you make an emotional connection or did you talk about trivial stuff that'd likely bore her? When did you ask for her number?

 

 

 

Well you initially called it "crap," so I did my best to dispel that for anyone reading who might want to apply it.

 

 

 

If it works for you, great. I don't "need" anyone to contact me either. But nor do I feel the "need" to contact other people out of the blue; avoiding the implications of it is really the crux of this.

 

 

 

Take a look: https://postimg.org/image/jcir4mri9/

 

Still don't believe me? Now if I had sent those 160 messages to strangers rather than to whoever I sent them to, to them I'd be lowering myself to the level of "guy who has to message me." Granted, you're right to assume there's probably not much crossover between the ones who messaged me and the fictional ones I messaged in that scenario, but the principal still applies: It's infinitely easier to work from a position where someone else needs your attention than vice versa.

 

 

 

My mistake. What I should've communicated is that if it works for you all the time, then you've got something special there. I don't see why you'd have any other problems.

 

 

 

No, common sense suggests the person that cares or desires the other person more does the contacting or asking. The bank doesn't call you up randomly to ask you if you want to borrow their money. When women contact men, it's not "just because," it's because they feel the things described in my last post. Granted there are a lot of nuances and variations to it, but the point remains, having to ask is akin to a submission.

 

Unorthodox and uncommon doesn't mean "ineffective." Maybe it's not just coincidence that I'm the "uncommon" OLD success in this thread of people frustrated with it. And it's not for the sake of arguing, the appearance of power and leverage is an important element of romantic interaction that you just wanted to jeer at like it was some magic trick for kids. Everyone uses it and has it applied to them whether they realize it or not. If more guys understood the concept as a whole they probably wouldn't struggle as much. Hopefully someone reading this gains some insight from it, at least.

 

I don't ask for the number too soon since when I've done that in the past she just stopped replying since it likely scared her away. But the conversation with this woman was going really well & it was flowing good but her response time kept getting longer & longer until she finally just stopped. It just seems like she never had any strong interest to begin with if I had to guess.

[normal person]

I don't ask for the number too soon since when I've done that in the past she just stopped replying since it likely scared her away. But the conversation with this woman was going really well & it was flowing good but her response time kept getting longer & longer until she finally just stopped. It just seems like she never had any strong interest to begin with if I had to guess.

 

What'd you talk about? Did you establish some kind of emotional connection or bond, or did you just talk about trivial things?

[MidwestUSA]

What'd you talk about? Did you establish some kind of emotional connection or bond, or did you just talk about trivial things?

 

Not to mention, 'flowing good' to 'response times getting longer' don't make sense together.

 

Don't tell me this was via text.

[NJ123]

What'd you talk about? Did you establish some kind of emotional connection or bond, or did you just talk about trivial things?

 

Yeah, I guess it was trivial things but the conversation was fun. She seemed really into it & sending responses like she was enjoying herself. Than all of a sudden she slowly faded out.

[NJ123]

Not to mention, 'flowing good' to 'response times getting longer' don't make sense together.

 

Don't tell me this was via text.

 

Yeah it was text since I only just started talking to her through OLD app. I didn't have her number since I didn't want to ask for it too soon when we were texting. And with flowing good I meant that when she was replying quick it was. But than she just seemed to slowly fade out of nowhere.

Edited September 21, 2016 by NJ123

[normal person]

Yeah, I guess it was trivial things but the conversation was fun. She seemed really into it & sending responses like she was enjoying herself. Than all of a sudden she slowly faded out.

 

You can't talk about trivial stuff for long, it prevents the "humanization" necessary for her to bond with you. Don't just ask her what she does or what she likes -- anyone can be an accountant and like puppies -- ask her what she feels/thinks about it, why she does it or why she likes it, what her opinions about X are, etc. Get to know her thought processes, then give your opinions and let her know yours. Otherwise you'll just bore her to tears.

[ZA Dater]

Consider this example: I think messaging women first (unless she "winks" or "likes" you) is a really bad idea. It's essentially asking someone for their attention, and if you're asking someone for something, you're empowering them over you and lowering yourself. Also, writing a message to someone without an indication of interest (like a girl giving you "the eyes" at the bar) is like walking up to a random girl at the bar and assuming she wants to talk to you, then getting upset when she doesn't. If a guy can't see the comparison, it would appear he has has a noticeable lack of observational skills and judgement. Now think about the guy doing this hundreds of times. Should we really expect this guy, who is obviously clueless, to have any notable success? I don't think so.

 

Imagine that guy in the bar, like clockwork, walking up to every single woman, trying to say something to her, getting rejected/ignored, then immediately going to the next girl and trying the same thing. Maybe, just maybe, it's not OLD's fault if the guy can't figure out the basic nuances of this iteration of the mating dance like everyone else.

 

I don't agree with any of this and reading through it I made the following assumptions.

: you are way above average looking

: you use economic advantage in your pictures to draw people in

: you are a world renowned writer who can write things which appeal to all ladies.

: you date down severely.

 

For us normal mortals we actually need to approach people first so the above really is mute for most of us.

 

The bold is simply well, we I wont got there but it seems on average most people never master that at all.

[ZA Dater]

My success with OLD despite never sending messages first.

 

Kind of odd how I'm amongst the only people here who's successful with OLD and you scoff at my replies like I'm the one who doesn't what he's doing.

 

 

 

Never read one, but thanks for the baseless assumption. There are shades of grey but the principle holds up. Think about this: when you ask for someone's time and attention, you're essentially saying that you want something they have; that you're not comfortable with whatever you're lacking. It's like going to your friend and asking them for money. You're bowing your head and acknowledging the disparity of leverage and power between you. They have something you want and you're not resourceful or secure enough to have it yourself or be content without it. You've empowered them. You're showing concern and worry, which is unattractive. Not having something you need is not really a good look.

 

Why do you dress up nicely when you go to the bank to ask for a loan? Because you want to look nice to appease them because when you ask for their money, they have power of over you. You're at their mercy. Being at someone's mercy is not appealing. It's the same principal when you ask for someone's time and affection, be it in a message or otherwise. However you slice it, it's better to be asked than to have to ask. Whoever is being asked wears the pants. And it's more attractive to wear the pants.

 

Consider this:

 

Scenario 1: A man sees a woman he finds attractive. He feels he has to ask her out, perhaps maybe he has no other options, so he does. He's essentially saying "I'm not comfortable or secure without your time and attention, and I'm not sure I can get anyone else, so I have to ask you for yours because you're not giving it to me yet." Doesn't sound so appealing when the subtext is spelled out like that, does it?

 

This is why people get uncomfortable or nervous asking people out -- because they concede agency of the situation and willfully put their fate at someone else's discretion to reject or accept. They're making themselves vulnerable. They're lying down and submitting; deferring the decision making process to someone else. Submission is less attractive than being submitted to. Having to do it is less attractive than not having to do it. Continuing off of that...

 

Scenario 2: A man sees a woman, but doesn't really care because he has other options and he knows he can do just fine without this one girl's time and attention, because other women will give it to him. The woman finds him appealing, but he doesn't say anything to her. She wonders why, maybe he's got a ton more options and doesn't need her. She realizes if she wants to talk to this guy, she's going to have to do something about it and basically put herself out there and give the subconscious admission that she's insecure and uncomfortable enough without his attention. So she has to submit to him and put her fate in his hands; she's insecure or uncomfortable without it.

 

That's the concept. People who message other people, or approach other people are often admitting that they have to, that the other person has power over them. People who don't have to maintain the cachet of not having to because they're fine without it and not worried, and therefore not insecure.

 

And if someone has the impression of you that you're confident and secure without them, that makes you all the more appealing.

 

It's funny, I talk about this concept a lot with a lot of women and they all understand it instantaneously and can talk about it with ease, and offer their own insights -- that a guy who they feel has to message them often isn't one they'd be attracted to -- and here you're deriding it like hogwash as if it's something I just made up for fun.

 

 

 

 

That's great. If I didn't get the indication I'd try a few subtle things until I did. But do you really think it happening a handful of times makes it the rule rather than the exception? If it is, why don't you just go and do that all the time?

 

There are some HUGE assumptions here.

 

Firstly how do you attract ladies to have them find you appealing? Nobody has ever been able to answer that question. Please tell me what these ladies find attractive, I'd guess the following in this order.

1: Money

2: Social status

3: Looks.

 

How do you tell if someone is interested?

 

At the end of the day anyone who wants to HAS to. You either do or you simply get nothing or if you are super unfortunate you waste years of your life to find in the cold light od day you possess nothing attractive to anyone.

 

Also tell me what makes a person universally appealing? Oh, I guess its the three things listed above.

[LookAtThisPOst]

I have to actually admit, I'm seeing women with dating profiles with headlines stating, "This site should be called Plenty of Losers!" or "This site is a joke!"

 

Saw this too, "If you keep looking at my profile but can't be bothered to mail me, it's really creepy and no one wants that. So have some balls or stop stalking me, thank you."

 

A lot of them sound like they are just lecturing their audience with vile bitterness than actually talking about themselves. They share this long list of demands, told in the tone of a terrorist organization.

 

Starting to see profiles sounding bitter and angry from these women. Makes me think they should take a break, but still keep coming back.

 

Some of them sound seriously more **sed off at the world than the men on there. lol

 

Example:

 

If you are unable to take more then 30 minutes out of your day to even talk to me, this won't work. A woman wants to feel important gentlemen.

 

Don't ignore a message for half a day while you go out with your friends all night. We live in a world where you can step away to get back to her and no one's cares. He** your friends should be telling you to, as they want you happy.

 

Then there's the, "I don't NEED a man to make me happy" conversation uttered so many times in profiles as if it were necessary.

Edited September 21, 2016 by LookAtThisPOst

[ChickiePops]

I don't ask for the number too soon since when I've done that in the past she just stopped replying since it likely scared her away. But the conversation with this woman was going really well & it was flowing good but her response time kept getting longer & longer until she finally just stopped. It just seems like she never had any strong interest to begin with if I had to guess.

 

Next time try offering your number to her instead. It's less pressure. Could work.

 

By the way, I met my fiancé through Match. So it does work sometimes.

[NJ123]

Next time try offering your number to her instead. It's less pressure. Could work.

 

By the way, I met my fiancé through Match. So it does work sometimes.

 

True. I'm talking with someone else at the moment on Bumble but she doesn't even live in the same state as me so it's highly likely nothing will ever happen with her past talking online.

[normal person]

I don't agree with any of this and reading through it I made the following assumptions.

: you are way above average looking

 

I'm not a woman, I couldn't tell you. Even so, I read a study recently saying that only 40% of women could agree on what men were attractive, whereas 90% of men could agree on what women were attractive. Womens' taste is much more variable. There are plenty of women out there who like a guy, or would, somewhere.

 

: you use economic advantage in your pictures to draw people in

 

Yeah, it's probably all just pictures me leaning on my Ferrari, right?

 

I can assure you I don't. Just normal pictures, some interesting, all with funny captions. You will only find a faint hint of success mentioned, and even then it comes at the expense of a lot of honesty and self-deprecation. I've also found no real difference between listing my income and not listing it.

 

Even if that was the case, if you thought that's what you needed to do, why not do it? OLD is not subject to "fairness." If you've made a ton of money, women might take note, right? That's a huge reason why men make money to begin with. Use every advantage you've got. The whole concept of dating and mating is to attract the most desirable, compatible partner you can. If you were a doctor, would you say you swept floors? If you were 6'2" would you write that you were 5"6" just to be fair to everyone else? It isn't fair. Peoples' skills, accomplishments, and attributes are the currency by which they present themselves desirably. That's the point. That's why I keep saying it's a death sentence to be "average" in this arena. It's Darwinism. If you're not having luck, do something about it until you do.

 

: you are a world renowned writer who can write things which appeal to all ladies.

 

My profile is funny and written in such a way that stands out from the pack -- by design -- because I'm not a complete idiot and I'm well aware that it's necessary to stand out in an arena where people are sifting through hundreds of similar profiles.

 

: you date down severely.

 

Nice try, but no. If I wasn't as picky as they come I wouldn't have an inbox teeming with messages and be unmarried at 30. I don't settle for anyone. I used to give a lot of people the benefit of the doubt and go out with them, but it wasn't as fruitful as hoped so I've stopped. These days I only go out with someone if she 1). Demonstrates a sense of humor and intelligence, 2). has a decent career and doesn't need my money, 3). is really cute, 4). is 5'7" or under, and 5). lives somewhere that's accessible by subway relatively easily.

 

I'd estimate that eliminates 90% of messages/links/winks from contention. So no, I don't date down.

 

For us normal mortals we actually need to approach people first so the above really is mute for most of us.

 

Or, instead of "approaching" people, making your intention known immediately, and letting them assume the power over you, you could get someone in a circumstantial setting, not show your cards immediately, not care so obviously if you have their time and attention, and work things so that they want yours.

 

The bold is simply well, we I wont got there but it seems on average most people never master that at all.

 

~1/3 of US marriages now start online. It's the norm.

 

There are some HUGE assumptions here.

 

Firstly how do you attract ladies to have them find you appealing? Nobody has ever been able to answer that question. Please tell me what these ladies find attractive, I'd guess the following in this order.

1: Money

2: Social status

3: Looks..

 

I won't pretend like those things aren't important, but even if you don't have those, at some level you need to have some "bait." Your profile can't just be information, you might as well be an emotionless robot. Women need to get a sense of who you are as an individual. Not the trivial things, but personal things that characterize you. The easiest way is to be funny. You can also be interesting, mysterious, confident, or anything in that realm that engages a women's emotions and/or curiosity. That's what gets her to go from being ambivalent about you to "liking" you.

 

Writing that you like hiking is not going to do it. You need to get her to feel something about you as opposed to just learn facts. Writing that you like hiking because you feel at one with nature, have become exhausted with modern life, and prefer the threat of bears to the tedium of OLD would be a better sentence. It's expository, it shows your inner thought processes, and it's funny (not the best joke in the world, but you get the idea). You can argue with me about the supposed effectiveness, but my profile is laden with things like that. I edited it down to the word and cut all the fat from it.

 

At the end of the day, if you fail to realize that someone needs a reason to like you, or you can't give them one by making them feel something, you'll probably have an uphill battle. If I had to bet money, I'd wager this is one of the largest differences between people who are successful with it and people who aren't.

Edited September 21, 2016 by normal person

[NJ123]

Well even though we were highly likely never going to meet. She stopped replying after I told her what I do for work lol. Oh well.

[Aniela]

I have to actually admit, I'm seeing women with dating profiles with headlines stating, "This site should be called Plenty of Losers!" or "This site is a joke!"

 

Saw this too, "If you keep looking at my profile but can't be bothered to mail me, it's really creepy and no one wants that. So have some balls or stop stalking me, thank you."

 

A lot of them sound like they are just lecturing their audience with vile bitterness than actually talking about themselves. They share this long list of demands, told in the tone of a terrorist organization.

 

Starting to see profiles sounding bitter and angry from these women. Makes me think they should take a break, but still keep coming back.

 

Some of them sound seriously more **sed off at the world than the men on there. lol

 

Example:

 

If you are unable to take more then 30 minutes out of your day to even talk to me, this won't work. A woman wants to feel important gentlemen.

 

Don't ignore a message for half a day while you go out with your friends all night. We live in a world where you can step away to get back to her and no one's cares. He** your friends should be telling you to, as they want you happy.

 

Then there's the, "I don't NEED a man to make me happy" conversation uttered so many times in profiles as if it were necessary.

 

I could show you profiles of men who say things like not knowing why they bother, women are this and that - one put me off like that, five years ago. He kept changing his profile to add more bitter things.

 

Every day is a bad day for me now, but that's not because I avoided going out with him, and landing myself a husband I had almost nothing in common with.

[NJ123]

Well she unmatched me too now after I told her about my job. We were never going to meet anyway most likely due to not living in the same state but that stings a bit to be turned down soley due to my job.